Friday, 12 September 2014

So here we are, 6 days after Professor John Ashton's bout of Saturday night Twitter rage (see here, here and here for background), and the Faculty of Public Health has today posted a statement on their website.

Click to enlarge

Interesting to see that they're continuing to describe it as a Twitter "exchange" rather than a sinister trawling of vaper Twitter timelines followed by a series of insulting stand-alone tweets. The exchange of words only happened well after Ashton had begun his spiteful tirade. Still, at least they are taking it seriously.

But by "investigation", I'm wondering who exactly is being investigated. You see, one of the many vapers to have complained to the FPH is good friend of this blog Dr Steve W, who runs a sole trader e-cig shop in Bury.

Shortly after he sent off his complaint - and well before the FPH announced their investigation - his LinkedIn account had an unusual visitor.

Now, why do you reckon the Media and PR Officer at the FPH would be looking up Dr Steve on the internet, eh? I do hope it's not an attempt to dig dirt on their detractors and dismiss the whole thing as a conspiracy by big bad 'industry', because that would be a trifle naughty.

Unfortunately, it can't be ruled out owing to the nature of modern public health activists, as I described earlier in the week.

Additionally, there is the widespread public health annoyance that anyone is allowed to be anonymous online and that - as such - they must surely be paid shills. This not only further emphasises that they really don't understand how this internet thing has naturally developed since the 90s but also reveals the underlying tyrannical modern public health mindset.

It's a facet of the tyrant for centuries that anonymity unnerves the dictatorial. If you have a solid case that can be backed up with unshakeable evidence, anonymity is nothing to be scared of, but public health haven't enjoyed that position for over a decade now.

Instead, as Ashton has shown, the modus operandum for public health now solely consists of attacking the man not the ball. How on Earth can they do that if those opposing them can't be investigated and intimidated, eh?

And, indeed, dismissed as complainants thus avoiding the need to address the matter properly. It is a tactic that has always helped them avoid debate, so why not to deflect attention from a PR disaster too? Why should it matter to the FPH who is complaining? Surely the only thing that they should be addressing is the content of the complaint.

If you complained too, I'm sure you'll be thrilled that FPH Liz wants to get to know you better.

13 comments:

Allison
said...

I saw a post about this from Allen Carr (of Easy Way to Stop Smoking fame). The refered to e-cigarette supporters as shutting down free speech. When a man commented that he had quit smoking and switched to vaping, and that he was a shift worker with no ties to the industry, Mr Carr appearently researched him and dismissed him because he was a member of the Polish Vapers Association.

It really does speak to the weakness of your argument if you have to dismiss every person that disagrees with you as a industry secret absent rather than engage in actual debate.

I note that Ashton's behaviour and suspension has not been reported by the BBC, which is currently running a child abuse story about some American football nonentity hitting his kid with a branch. There has been no follow up by The Times either.

If the abuse had originated from someone who actually works for a living, I can't help but feel that the media would have been all over the story.

Calling everyone who disagrees with you a shill is standard operating procedure for anti fracking campaigners too. I continually get called that when a look at my timeline on twitter shows that I am far from it. It's the same as calling someone racist to stop a debate.